Books by David Irving

[Zebedee]

[snipped out a long stream of references which you found of interest]

As you can see, it is extraordinarily well-researched. The problem is when you search for a particular document quoted by him. In the NARA documents he cited the Frame number (ej. T-175/99/2506), but not in other archival documents, ej. BA, BA-MA, IfZ, etc. But he is not the only. Recently, Longerich managed to write a Himmler bio without a folio reference in the entire book! He just quoted the archival collection, and doesn't interest him if the volume was 300 folios long. So, any person interested in finding a document cited by him in a certain volume need to read almost ALL documents to find it! That's why archives are paginated, to be helpful to historians and prevent people reading unnecessarily to find a document. In a volume not paginated, real historians put an "unpag." or "unfol."

Other historian who published a heavy tome without the Bl./fol./ references (except for 2 sources) is Christian Hartmann, who in his "Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg", with 4.834 footnotes, quotes hundreds of archival documents.

Hi Boby,

I've got Hitler's War (1991 edition, though 2001 edition is also available for free from the author too), but appreciate the effort you made in listing Irving's referenced material for it . I'm afraid I did not think we were solely discussing Hitler's War, I certainly did not specifically reference that work in the context of the post you have quoted from, but I'm happy to discuss solely that work on its merits.

Before we do though, do you feel that all Irving's work are as adequately sourced as you feel Hitler's War is? Do you feel that every important point is adequately sourced even within Hitler's War? 1500 pages of notes and sources is certainly a lot, I'd agree. Did you find it unusual that he manages to perfectly cite the source for Hitler's trial in 1924 when making an uncontroversial point in Hitler's War, but seems to have forgotten that source when being a tad creative with it in his biography of Göring just a few years later?

I do take your point on accurately listing the references to allow those wishing to follow the trail easier and fully agree with it.

Can I ask you how you feel about Irving's original use (1977 edition) of Himmler's phone log for 1.30pm, 30th November 1941? This is a cornerstone source for the arguments he initially made in Hitler's War.

[Boby]

Zebedee, you wrote:

Before we do though, do you feel that all Irving's work are as adequately sourced as you feel Hitler's War is? Do you feel that every important point is adequately sourced even within Hitler's War? 1500 pages of notes and sources is certainly a lot, I'd agree. Did you find it unusual that he manages to perfectly cite the source for Hitler's trial in 1924 when making an uncontroversial point in Hitler's War, but seems to have forgotten that source when being a tad creative with it in his biography of Göring just a few years later?

I don't say Hitler's War is "adequately sourced". I posted the list of sources to show that Irving used a lot of primary sources, but the question is how he used them. The answer is in many cases negative. Irving is really at his worst when sourcing. There are no numbered references in Hitler's War, just page references. There are a lot of pages without being sourced at all. In his Milch bio (1973) he introduced the numbering references, as in his Göring (1989) and Goebbels (1996) books. At least he improved it.

* It seems he cut a lot of the original footnotes for the published version of "Hitler's War" (the draft apparently runs to 1000 pages).

Q. Professor Evans, when your researchers were researching in my files at the Institute of History in Munich, did they come across a thick file there which was about 1,000 pages long, consisting of the original annotated footnotes of Hitler's War which were referenced by number to every single sentence in that book?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day019.htm

Can I ask you how you feel about Irving's original use (1977 edition) of Himmler's phone log for 1.30pm, 30th November 1941? This is a cornerstone source for the arguments he initially made in Hitler's War.

It seems he manipulated the phone log or misread it. Here is the original:



BA, NS 19/1438, fol. 46

Irving original explanations reads:

"On November 30, 1941, he [Himmler] was summoned to the Wolfs Lair for a secret conference with Hitler, at which the fate of Berlin’s Jews was clearly raised. At 1:30 P.M. Himmler was obliged to telephone from Hitler’s bunker to Heydrich the explicit order that Jews were not to be liquidated, and the next day Himmler telephoned SS General Oswald Pohl, overall chief of the concentration camp system, with the order : “Jews are to stay where they are.”(6)"

In fact, Himmler doesn't meet Hitler before the telephone talk, but after. See Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, p. 278, entry for 30.11.1941, 14.30 - 16 hours: "Mittagessen b. Führer"

But bear in mind that Himmler's agenda for 1941 was discovered only in 1996-7 IIRC, and later published in an outstanding edition (wich I have) by Christians Verlag in 1999. So, Irving of 1977 don't know Himmler's whereabouts this day, only that he phoned Heydrich in Prague and wrote "Judentransport aus Berlin / Keine liquidierung". Subsequent transports in Ostland were not massacred, but accomodated in the ghettos. So Himmler's order clearly have an effect, because the first transports were wholly exterminated by local commanders.

So, Irving opinion was that Hitler gives a general order not to liquidate jews on 30.11.1941, and that it was Himmler and local commanders who decided that jews must be exterminated, whithout Hitler knowing it, until 7 October 1943, when Himmler visited the Wolfsschanze after talking the day before in Posen, then Hitler finally knows what her dear "Reichsheini" has done.

But we know that there was no meeting with Hitler before the phone call, and that this "order" (Himmler's) was only to german jews transported to Ostland.

Irving's other reference to "Jews are to stay where they are" is a misread/manipulation of the original text, wich reads:

"Verwaltungsführer der SS
haben zu bleiben" (Dienstkalender, p. 280)

Irving reads "Juden zu bleiben" and linked it with the Himmler phone call.

In all, no one of Irving's original explanation stands up after closer examination.

[Zebedee]

Hi Boby,

To be honest, I don't think we're disagreeing at all because the point I was going to make on Hitler's War was precisely the one you have made there - that for all the claims of copious research, what good is it if the reader cannot trust him to tell the truth?

I don't think there can be any reasonable disagreement over his use of the phone log, as you've demonstrated there.

On a more general point about references, his sourcing of the Dreden numbers was an interesting example.

Be safe and good luck,

Zeb

[Treve]

...or the Bydgoszcz massacre for that matter.

The Himmler log issue is perhaps the most famous example of Irving misusing evidence but worse is if this is not an exception but part of a systematic pattern of manipulating and misrepresenting evidence - in many ways the work not of a professional but of an amateur.

What is interesting is that most of the denunciation of his works seems to be centered around the German ones, particularly Hitler's War and Dresden.

What of his Churchill books? Has he also manipulated evidence in those as well?

[Qvist]

Zebedee, you wrote:

Going further, sources can only be checked when the correct references are given

Irving gives the references in the majority of cases:

As you can see, it is extraordinarily well-researched. The problem is when you search for a particular document quoted by him. In the NARA documents he cited the Frame number (ej. T-175/99/2506), but not in other archival documents, ej. BA, BA-MA, IfZ, etc. But he is not the only. Recently, Longerich managed to write a Himmler bio without a folio reference in the entire book! He just quoted the archival collection, and doesn't interest him if the volume was 300 folios long. So, any person interested in finding a document cited by him in a certain volume need to read almost ALL documents to find it! That's why archives are paginated, to be helpful to historians and prevent people reading unnecessarily to find a document. In a volume not paginated, real historians put an "unpag." or "unfol."

Other historian who published a heavy tome without the Bl./fol./ references (except for 2 sources) is Christian Hartmann, who in his "Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg", with 4.834 footnotes, quotes hundreds of archival documents.

I don't agree that Hitler's War is well researched. For matters pertaining to the Eastern Front, I would say it is extremely badly researched - he does not quote very extensive documentation, and worse, the documentation he does quote is often quite irrelevant and unsuited to support the points (which is unsurprising, given that he gives a portrayal of events that would in a lot of cases not be sustainable if he used relevant sources). I looked in detail not that long ago into his treatment of the summer/fall camapign in 1943 in the East, and his sourcing of his atrocious discussion of that was really quite absurd. At one point, he sourced his appraisal of the remaining Soviet manpower reserves - a fairly critical issue - in what Backe's wife wrote in her diary that Goebbels' wife had told her!

His reputation as a historian who's good at source work is not very deserved, in my opinion. It seems pretty obvious to me that he uses sources very selectively. He seems to use them to back his narrative, not to derive his narrative from.

Not going to blame him for not citing folio numbers though. Lots of researchers don't, and there's no requirement to make life maximally easy for other researchers. Plus, it's actually not that easy to keep track of, if you're not fortunate enough to get photocopies of everything you use.

[Boby]

Hi Qvist!

I don't agree that Hitler's War is well researched. For matters pertaining to the Eastern Front, I would say it is extremely badly researched - he does not quote very extensive documentation, and worse, the documentation he does quote is often quite irrelevant and unsuited to support the points (which is unsurprising, given that he gives a portrayal of events that would in a lot of cases not be sustainable if he used relevant sources). I looked in detail not that long ago into his treatment of the summer/fall camapign in 1943 in the East, and his sourcing of his atrocious discussion of that was really quite absurd. At one point, he sourced his appraisal of the remaining Soviet manpower reserves - a fairly critical issue - in what Backe's wife wrote in her diary that Goebbels' wife had told her!

But Hitler's War covered 3 September 1939 to 30 April 1945 in about 800 pages. It is impossible to be exhaustive at every topic/year. You are right that he is very weak when discussing eastern fron general conditions, but note that the book is from the point of view of Hitler at the high level. Note also that from the biographies available, Irving one is the best sourced of all. I remind you of Kershaw's worthless treatment of Barbarossa years...

His reputation as a historian who's good at source work is not very deserved, in my opinion. It seems pretty obvious to me that he uses sources very selectively. He seems to use them to back his narrative, not to derive his narrative from.

The difference with other Hitler biographers is that he worked in archives, whereas Bullock, Fest, Kershaw et al almost only used secondary literature. But I agree he have many weakness in his use of sources. Obviouly, if you wanted to know something about the eastern front in 1943, Hitler's War is not the best book. DRZW 8 is available with in-depth treatment of sources. But note that DRZW 8 is a book entirely concentrating in 1943-1944 (1225 pages!), so the amount of info is infinitely superior to other books covering 1943-44 is a superficial way.

Not going to blame him for not citing folio numbers though. Lots of researchers don't, and there's no requirement to make life maximally easy for other researchers. Plus, it's actually not that easy to keep track of, if you're not fortunate enough to get photocopies of everything you use.

I don't agree. In my opinion, a researcher is obliged to provide every source he used, even at a folio number. If Hartmann spent more than 10 years in researching for his "Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg", a 800 pages book with some 5.000 footnotes, then why the hell he doesn't provide folio/frames references? A lot of energy spent with the footnotes, who covered 3/4 of many pages! Typical Hartmann citation:

IfZ-Archiv, MA 1661: 221. Sich.Div., Abt. I a, Divisionsbefehl vom 19.7.1941

But microfilm MA 1661 at Institut für Zeitgeschichte perhaps covered 1.000 frames (as NARA microfilms [it is a duplicate?]). So, a IfZ-Archiv, MA 1661, Fr. 890 or whatever pagination it have will be an enormous help for other researchers. That's why archives are paginated and microfilms have a frame number!!!

* I might add that today, with a .txt file in your PC is enough to have a list of all sources you are using in a book. In fact, I have a folder just called "sources" with more than 200 books listed with all archival research.

[BillHermann]

I always feel hesitant joining the conversation of such threads for many personal reasons but for me I look at it in a simple fashion. Expertise in a subject matter and publishing titles that are respected by some is one thing but when the same individual goes out into left field that is where it ends for me.

its like a well respected politician or leader that does great things and then falls off his/her pedestal and does something questionable. It is not to say that there is still value but they do end up losing respect and credibility.

[Qvist]

But Hitler's War covered 3 September 1939 to 30 April 1945 in about 800 pages. It is impossible to be exhaustive at every topic/year. You are right that he is very weak when discussing eastern fron general conditions, but note that the book is from the point of view of Hitler at the high level. Note also that from the biographies available, Irving one is the best sourced of all. I remind you of Kershaw's worthless treatment of Barbarossa years...


The difference with other Hitler biographers is that he worked in archives, whereas Bullock, Fest, Kershaw et al almost only used secondary literature. But I agree he have many weakness in his use of sources. Obviouly, if you wanted to know something about the eastern front in 1943, Hitler's War is not the best book. DRZW 8 is available with in-depth treatment of sources. But note that DRZW 8 is a book entirely concentrating in 1943-1944 (1225 pages!), so the amount of info is infinitely superior to other books covering 1943-44 is a superficial way

.

Hi Boby,

Those would have been good points if the problem had been that HW treats these issues in a shallow, simplistic or superficial way. But that's not the problem. The problem is that it gives an analysis of the war in the East that is not just brief and simple, but fundamentally untenable and wrong. To stay with the fall 43 example, Irving gives a portrayal of the situation, events and their causes that are simply nonsense (but which just happens to underpin Hitler's statements and actions). And he does so by using the "right" sources, which is very instructive. For instance, he claims that OKW thought the Russians were running out of manpower, and that FHO's assesment supported this claim. Reasonably, to source that, you would look up the files of FHO, which are well catalogued and it's not difficult to find the appropriate documentation. But he doesn't - instead he quotes Backe's wife's diary, who cites Goebbels. If he had looked up the relevant assessments in the FHO files, he would have found that they say the exact opposite of what he claims. And this is how it goes. There is apparently in most cases no logical relation between the source used, and the relevance of that source to the issue at hand. The Backe's wife example is just the most extreme example. On the other hand, there is a consistent rock-solid relation between what Hitler claims, and what the chosen sources say. I think a clear answer to why that is the case suggests itself, and that answer points to a use of sources that amounts to nothing more than the systematic use of historical documents for essentially manipulative purposes. Which certainly is not good source work, even in the most technical sense.

I don't agree. In my opinion, a researcher is obliged to provide every source he used, even at a folio number. If Hartmann spent more than 10 years in researching for his "Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg", a 800 pages book with some 5.000 footnotes, then why the hell he doesn't provide folio/frames references? A lot of energy spent with the footnotes, who covered 3/4 of many pages!

Do you have any idea how unpractical that is? It is not at all a simple matter to provide folio numbers. Unless you use very few sources or have an unlimited budget, you in practice don't get copies that you can subsequently refer back to, but generally work from notes taken down while going through the files. I have worksheets with information compiled from maybe 40 or 50 different folios spread among several files. It's enough to drive anyone mad to begin with, to sit day in and day out and compile this information, and I can guarantee you that I would laugh in the face of anyone with the impertinence to suggest that I should have noted down every goddamn folio number used in addition, so that he'd have a super easy time checking out the info.

Anyway, we've discussed this before: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=162757

[Boby]

Hi Boby,

Those would have been good points if the problem had been that HW treats these issues in a shallow, simplistic or superficial way. But that's not the problem. The problem is that it gives an analysis of the war in the East that is not just brief and simple, but fundamentally untenable and wrong. To stay with the fall 43 example, Irving gives a portrayal of the situation, events and their causes that are simply nonsense (but which just happens to underpin Hitler's statements and actions). And he does so by using the "right" sources, which is very instructive. For instance, he claims that OKW thought the Russians were running out of manpower, and that FHO's assesment supported this claim. Reasonably, to source that, you would look up the files of FHO, which are well catalogued and it's not difficult to find the appropriate documentation. But he doesn't - instead he quotes Backe's wife's diary, who cites Goebbels. If he had looked up the relevant assessments in the FHO files, he would have found that they say the exact opposite of what he claims. And this is how it goes. There is apparently in most cases no logical relation between the source used, and the relevance of that source to the issue at hand. The Backe's wife example is just the most extreme example. On the other hand, there is a consistent rock-solid relation between what Hitler claims, and what the chosen sources say. I think a clear answer to why that is the case suggests itself, and that answer points to a use of sources that amounts to nothing more than the systematic use of historical documents for essentially manipulative purposes. Which certainly is not good source work, even in the most technical sense.

No disagreement here. I bow to your superior research and knowledge in this area.

Do you have any idea how unpractical that is? It is not at all a simple matter to provide folio numbers. Unless you use very few sources or have an unlimited budget, you in practice don't get copies that you can subsequently refer back to, but generally work from notes taken down while going through the files. I have worksheets with information compiled from maybe 40 or 50 different folios spread among several files. It's enough to drive anyone mad to begin with, to sit day in and day out and compile this information, and I can guarantee you that I would laugh in the face of anyone with the impertinence to suggest that I should have noted down every goddamn folio number used in addition, so that he'd have a super easy time checking out the info.

There is a difference between an amateur historian (or an internet historian) and an academic historian. Surely an amateur historian is not much interested in these extremely detailed footnotes, but we are talking of academic historians, who worked in the field for many years. The most outstanding example of exhaustive footnoting I know is Christian Gerlach "Kalkulierte Morde", with a such an amazing array of primary sources and secondary literature (some 5.700 footnotes covering 1/2 or even 3/4 in a book of 1200 pages), with every sourced detailed to folio level. Now, you can see the difference between just an average scholar and one of the most extraordinary scholars of his generation.

Well, let's back to Irving.

Boby,

[Qvist]

There is a difference between an amateur historian (or an internet historian) and an academic historian. Surely an amateur historian is not much interested in these extremely detailed footnotes, but we are talking of academic historians, who worked in the field for many years. The most outstanding example of exhaustive footnoting I know is Christian Gerlach "Kalkulierte Morde", with a such an amazing array of primary sources and secondary literature (some 5.700 footnotes covering 1/2 or even 3/4 in a book of 1200 pages), with every sourced detailed to folio level. Now, you can see the difference between just an average scholar and one of the most extraordinary scholars of his generation.

Well, let's back to Irving.

Boby,

I'm not researching for fun, but academically - but there's not going to be a lot of folio numbers in my footnotes, I can tell you that. It is of course the best solution if you are going to be really meticulous, I just don't agree that it is a requirement. Sourcing should clarify the sources used, but there is no obligation to make it maximally convenient for anyone who wishes to consult them. Frankly, I can also think of quite a lot of more relevant standards to judge standards of scholarship by.

[Boby]

May I can ask what are you researching/writing? It sounds interesting.

Boby,

[trespasser07]

Has there been any updates about Irving's long awaited Himmler biography? I though it was due out in 2013...

Regards.

[steve248]

As one of the joint authors of "Himmler's Diary 1945" published this year, we had some problems with some entries simply because they were attributed to Irving's published works. We had great trouble finding his sources for several entries and eventually entailed a huge amount of time to resolve his sources. In the end we whittled it down to two entries where we had to quote Irving's earlier works. The one in particular we had problems with was Irving's work on V weapons, so we quoted it.

The larger problem is that no scholar or historians wants to quotes Irving's work. By going down the denier path, he basically shot his feet off. Then emptied his bank balance by defending himself in the Lipstadt libel case. Why he ever thought he would win is beyond me.

Other posters above have mentioned Irving's footnotes, which are appalling in both their lack of identification of the material and as bad as "from the author's archive". The weeks I spent footnoting and double checking for Himmler's Diary doesn't bear thinking about.

I am not put out, but simply find it laughable, that he mentions me on his website. I have been at UK National Archives on occasion when David has been there and we pull each other's leg. When he suggested I might do some research for him I believe I politely declined. On his website David states that I "acidly" refused. I shall have to take his walking stick away next time just to be awkward.

It must be two or three years since our last chance meeting and his Himmler biography was imminent then; he was writing it when in an Austrian jail for a year or so many years ago now. Maybe the fundraising in the USA gets in the way of research and writing.

[TimeTravelAgent]

Has there been any updates about Irving's long awaited Himmler biography? I though it was due out in 2013...

Regards.

Looks like the first part is finally available

http://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.ph ... ctid=18116

[Hans1906]

Good afternoon,

the only book by David Irving, I bought at a so called "Modernes Antiquariat" (E: modern "antiquarian bookshop").

Title: Die geheimen Tagebücher des Dr. Morell: Leibarzt Adolf Hitlers

Link: https://www.zvab.com/9783442300099/gehe ... 300096/plp

The price at that time under 5, - German marks, 2.99, or 3.99 German marks, I do not remember at all.
At that time it was sold on the so-called "grab tables" at the lowest price possible.

Looking at the website ZVAB, and how much some bookshops ask nowadays for the book, it was for sure a mistake, not
to buy 10 or 20 copies for a pocket money, too late...

Did I ever read the complete book, I do not remember, probably not?


Hans1906